Throughout the country, eating fast food has been proven to be unhealthy and can lead to obesity, but warnings are ignored daily. Most people tend to eat fast food for its convenience, but many are unaware of the negative side effects it can have on their bodies. It is often questioned how to raise awareness to prevent obesity and the other negative effects eating fast food can have on our bodies. The most effective way is through using rhetorical devices in advertisements. People see ads everywhere, which is very important because everyone needs to be aware of the negative effects fast food can cause. Obesity is becoming a bigger problem each day in America and thousands are even dying from it. By comparing two fast food ads, it is clear that the first one is more effective in making the public aware of the negative effects of fast food.
To compare two ads accurately, there are specific criteria that must be met that can also be used for all ads of the same kind. First, an effective ad against fast food must contain an image that makes the viewer aware and frightened by the negative effects that fast food can have on one’s body. If the viewer is aware of the negative effects of fast food, he or she will be less likely to eat it. Also, if the viewer is frightened by the ad, the viewer will be more likely to have a negative outlook towards it. Next, the ad must come from a trustworthy source to meet the criteria for an anti-fast food ad. Today, anyone can create an advertisement for anything he or she wishes and upload it to the internet, so it is crucial to be sure the ad comes from a reliable source. Finally, the advertisement needs to have some logic to back it up. This means to be an effective ad, it must be presented with facts based on the negative effects of fast food. Altogether, to be an effective ad it should contain logic, come from a reliable source, and make the viewer aware and frightened.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The first ad contains an open cigarette carton that appears to be standing up. Rather than containing cigarettes as a cigarette carton would normally contain, the box is full of French fries. The ad is comparing French fries, which represent all fast food in general, to cigarettes. Fast food is known to have a direct relation to obesity in the United States, but the facts are ignored daily. The words “French Fries” are written across the carton with the words “Not-So-Light” below them. In the center of the carton, there appears to be a McDonald’s logo. On the bottom of the ad it says, “The obesity death rate is overtaking cigarette smoking. Consume with caution.” At the very bottom of the ad, there is a Department of Health and Human Services logo. The image’s primary focus is on the French fries within the cigarette carton. The ad does a great job of meeting all criteria and would be considered a very effective ad.
The Department of Health and Human Services uses this ad to make viewers feel frightened of fast food and to make them aware of the negative effects that come from consuming it. The ad is intended to make the viewer feel paranoid about the negative effects of fast food because of the writing. Knowing that French fries in a cigarette carton are not very scary, the author had to take a different approach to frighten the viewer. Most people know how bad cigarette smoking is for the body and have seen the damage cigarettes can cause. Furthermore, by the author stating that the obesity death rate is overtaking cigarette smoking, the author instills fear and anxiety in the viewer through the use of a warning. The ad also makes the viewer aware of how big of a problem obesity has become by comparing it to cigarette smoking. The words “Consume with caution” also give the viewer a sense of awareness by making the viewer feel as though he or she should be more cautious about what they consume. Pathos is just one rhetorical device used in this advertisement to help make the ad more successful.
The advertisement also has a good representation of ethos. The ad originated from the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a very reliable source. The logo is easily visible, located at the very bottom at the middle of the ad. Most people have heard of the Department of Health and Human Services and many would refer to the department as trustworthy. By coming from a reliable source, the viewer feels as though he or she can trust the information provided, making the ad even more successful. Another rhetorical device used to make this advertisement effective includes logos.
In this particular advertisement, there are no numbers or statistics that represent logos. The ad simply states the fact that the obesity death rate is overtaking cigarette smoking. The ad uses factual information and logic to prove that fast food is bad for the body and to make viewers feel a sense of fear towards fast food. This information given to the viewer is also used to make the viewer aware of how bad the obesity death rate is by comparing it to cigarette smoking.
Moreover, the second ad, which is also an anti-fast food ad, is also trying to make the public more aware of the negative effects of eating fast food. This ad simply contains a photo of a salad, which is located at the top of the ad. In big bold letters across the center of the ad, it says, “Healthiest Choice?” Below this question the ad states, “Fast food’s ‘healthiest’ choice is a salad packed of antifreeze’s chemical compound, Propylene Glycerol, which causes eye and skin irritation.” There appear to be no logos on the ad. The ad is mainly focused on the salad, as the salad is the first thing the viewer sees when viewing the ad.
The second advertisement does not have a very strong use of pathos, as the only thing the ad shows is a salad. The image is supposed to make the viewer conscious of the effects fast food can have on the body through the use of rhetorical devices, but the image is not frightening and does not warn about the negative effects. In this particular ad, it is not the image that is intended to scare the viewer, it is the writing on the ad. The writing claims that even the healthiest of fast food, which is normally a salad, is packed full of harmful chemicals that cause eye and skin irritation. This statement most definitely evokes fear and awareness in the viewer because it makes the viewer think that, if even the healthiest of fast food can cause skin and eye irritation, then what can the rest of normal fast food do to the consumer’s body? This question is enough to make the consumer worry more about what he or she consumes and rethink eating fast food.
Pathos is not the only rhetorical device used within the ad, but it is also important to pay attention to the use of ethos for it to be an effective advertisement. This particular ad does not include any symbols or logos to tell who created the ad. This goes to show that the ad does not have a strong use of ethos, since the viewer cannot tell where the ad comes from. Without being able to tell if the ad comes from a reliable source, the ad does not meet the previously listed criteria of an effective ad against fast food. The ad could still have a very strong influence on fast-food consumers, it just may not come from as trustworthy of a source as the first advertisement.
Thus far, the second advertisement has not had as strong of a use of pathos or ethos as the first ad, but there is still another rhetorical device used that could make the ad more effective, which is logos. This ad does not have any statistics or numbers, but it does claim that fast food salads are packed full of Propylene Glycerol, which causes eye and skin irritation. Without being able to tell if the advertisement is from a reliable source, through ethos, the viewer may not trust
this claim. Typically, logos include facts or numbers, but the viewer may doubt that fast food salads are full of Propylene Glycerol if there is no source that the ad came from. This ad does not contain a successful use of logos, because the viewer does not know if the statement presented is a fact.
After analyzing both advertisements, the first ad is far more effective because the second ad does not meet the established criteria as well as the first ad. The first ad has a very strong use of pathos, comes from a reliable source, and also uses logos by including a statistic. The second ad does not have a successful use of pathos and does not appear to contain any ethos. Since the second ad does not contain the use of ethos the viewer may not trust the logos within the ad. Overall, the first ad was far more effective in the use of pathos, ethos, and logos, and also met all established criteria. The first ad also does a better job of making the viewer aware and frightened by the negative effects of fast food than the second ad. The first ad is far more effective than the second and could be viewed as a successful anti-fast food ad.
Stuck on your essay?
